tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 17, 2014 11:30am-1:31pm EDT
athlete as well and he was in both of these young men were deemed as the bright lights in the film but they also had two older or made sisters, mid-aged sisters i got into some trouble over the years as well. over the course of time, tamerlan tsarnaev and his father and his mother, they got disillusioned with their lives in america. they began to really become radicalized, local mosques and also on the internet. and sometime compared over the course of time, tamerlan that his brother involved as well. this is, they talked about, the explosion in front of marathon sports. >> so this explosion was the first one, and it went up about 30 feet roughly, 30 feet, the shrapnel and the damage to the buildings. if you're out on boylston street
after the bomb went off, you could look up at buildings above where sugar habit is an marathon sports and the windows were blown out up to three stories. at this site, michelle was there. this was where krystle campbell was there as well. >> she was one of the fatal victims in this attack. this is actually a shot of emts working on the body of krystle campbell. >> this picture here was taken by a woman who we interviewed for the book who was at the mandarin oriental. the mandarin oriental has a big, very swank event of the day with a lot of politicians, celebrities, business men and women. and when the bombs went off, the windows at the mandarin oriental literally shook. they waved in the wind like the. the woman who took this picture, megan johnson, a writer from
people magazine and some other outlets, she was a former colleague of mine at the "herald," and she is the one who took this picture right after that. >> this is a double tragedy if there is ever such one. for the family of krystle campbell. her parents have been told that she had survived. they rushed to mass. general hospital where they were looking for their daughter. they were brought into the recovery room and they were shown this woman lying on the bed, and it wasn't their daughter. it was then one's friend -- then one's friend. the mix up there in all that chaos, karen had a phone and krystle campbell's driver's license when she entered mass. general hospital. it was was the only way that staffers were i've been any of the victims at that point. so you can just imagine -- identifying any of the victims. hearing that the dollar to buy such a massive attack hi on a jt the utter horror of learning the actual truth on this.
this is michelle larue who we've been talking about. >> michel is 39. she lives in quincy. she was originally from me. she was and a question a student in college. she's a big horse back ride it. from the time she was a little girl. when she was at marathon sports, she was there watching her boyfriend who was running the marathon, it just before the bombs went off, her boyfriend had come by, slowed down where she was, lubricants, told her he loved it and he finished the marathon. crossed the finish line and he went to grab his back off the bus, took a shower. and in that time while he's on his way to get to the shower, the bomb went off and he didn't hear from michelle after that. he didn't know what was going on. michelle suffered pretty serious injuries. a large chunk of the back of her thigh was blown off. her arm was torn open. her bicep, and she lost 50% of
the hearing, and she still only a state to present overhearing. she never fell down. that's one of the things that casey and i, while we focus on michelle because she's such a strong person when you get to know or. you will get to know her in her book. she's an amazing woman, and she never fell down. she walked into marathon sports with all the windows lit up and she kind of stumbled her way into there. she did know how bad she was or. she said she didn't feel any pain. and then the folks in the realized how badly she was hurt. it later on the ground and she was basically, our life was saved by for just regular citizens. three people that worked at marathon sports and another civilian that was there. they tied a tourniquet on her arms and her leg and the doctors have told her that they not only saved her life but they probably saved her limbs. today, michelle is back running. she's doing a five k. race on
saturday, and she has already been backed scheme. she's going to be horseback riding again for the first time in a few weeks. >> what we also love about the show is just a dog of a firefighter, a state circuit one of the station houses in boston adopted her so speak, while she was recovering. and everyday while she was at a hospital there was a firefighter assigned to visit her, to bring the things, et cetera. she's got a family well beyond our little hometown in maine. at one point in the book, whenever i look at it, when we wrote it we laughed because michelle has such great spirit. as she was being lifted into the ambulance and as the ambulance was en route to the hospital, the ambulance kept on hitting these potholes. and she didn't focus on the injuries pictures focusing on those bleeping potholes in massachusetts. that's kept refocused and kept her spirit alive until she got to the hospital to get the help that she did need.
mary daniel is also an incredibly inspirational survivor. uk to call these people victims because they are survivors. mary daniel as you can see lost her leg in the bomb. mary daniel was a medical student. she graduated, she was working on her medical board the day of the marathon. she was an immigrant from haiti, came over to the united states, lived in boston when she was 16. went to umass, went to medical school. she had never really been to the marathon before. she had only been once in your life. she was living in the south end of the time and she was studying, and she was getting a little star crazy -- stir crazy because of the tough winter for all of us in boston, and she wanted to enjoy. she also is a five year old daughter, and she wanted to get outside. mary thought what a great opportunity to take her outside. let's go to the marathon. but she is this little five year old ball of rubber and she bounces off every wall in mary's
little apartment. just a high-energy little girl. mary thought, i might lose my daughter in the crowd the size, so at the last moment, married made a decision to leave her daughter home with her husband. she gets to boylston street and within seconds, the bomb goes off. mary is medically trained. mary can see the wounds that she is experienced. the lake that was taken from her, she didn't think that would be the leg that would be amputated her other leg suffered massive injuries as well. as she is lying on boylston street, lying next to jeff, another victim, and seeing all the carnage around her, two things are going through her mind. am i going to die? and thank god -- thank god i didn't bring my daughter. she's an incredibly resilient woman. dave talked about michelle training and running again.
skiing, et cetera. mary is going to be running in the marathon. she's going to be peddling. she's very excited about that and she is not going to let this tragedy impact the way she lives her life. now also at marathon sports that date is jeff bowman, who is become really one of the symbols of the boston marathon tragedy. in fact, jeff and carlos are going to be commencement speakers here at fisher college in may, etches a fantastic thing because you folks are really going to understand jeff's story. we spent a lot of time with jeff. >> we did. we will get to the french true. this picture i actually took. this was taken at the statehouse right up the street a few months ago. carlos -- carlos was given an award named after one of the stewardesses on one of the
flights of 9/11. it's a state hero awards they give every year and they gave it to carlos that day. jeff accompanied him to the event. that's the thing that you will see when you hear carlos and jeff speak at your commencement. they have become answerable the. they become almost a father-son like, developed a father-son like bond that we were able to see firsthand. we have since become friendly with them. it's really an incredible thing to see how they help each other and how much they mean to each other. you know, it's very genuine. carlos, i don't know how much you know about carlos, but he lost his two sons. one of his sons died in iraq, he was a soldier and he was killed in action. his other son committed suicide in 2011. this is carlos here. that day, marathon day, a lot of you probably saw it on tv.
carlos was we link just to safety and discredited with saving his life. and ever since then they have been by each other's side spent interesting, despite the catastrophic injuries that jeff suffered on boylston street, he was still able to help the fbi identified the bombing suspects. he had seen tamerlan tsarnaev just moments before the bomb went off, thought she looked suspicious and then one of jeff's friends motioned him for something else and he turned his head. when he turned back, tamerlan was going. but the very next day, as jeff was lying at city hospital he asked for a pin, or pencil i should say and a piece of paper and he scribbled i saw them. carlos, his caregiver, his hero, carlos was considered a suspect by the fbi in the hours after the bombing. as david mentioned, carlos had lost both -- both of his sons and 2000. when carlos was first notified
of his son's death in iraq, carlos had a breakdown. carlos tried to commit suicide and it was captured on local television in florida but it was a very highly publicized event down there. and when the fbi saw pictures of carlos on boylston street that day, they became suspicious and they question carlos. he gave them all the information that they needed. he gave them photographs taken from his camera. he gave them his sneakers and the clothes he had worn that day. the people that accompanied carlos to the marathon that day were incredulous over the fact, how anybody could think that carlos would do anything bad to another human being, because he brings so much life to people's lives and he still does. he definitely says it was a divine intervention that led him to boylston street that day. and it's hard not to believe him on that. the second bombing site, and this bomb occurred literally ignited seconds after the first
bomb ignited. when tamerlan tsarnaev visited his native dagestan in 2012 a year before the marathon bombing, he got in touch with possibly three people, including one young jihadists who just pulled off a very similar suicide bombing, to that nations that were triggered within seconds of each other. the first detonation, the first bomb is to kill the people in the syndicate the second bomb is always detonated to kill first responders. that's a common practice by terrorists across the world, and we believe that's one of the lessons that tamerlan tsarnaev did learn while he was there. this bomb killed two people. lindsay xu, a graduate student
and eight year old martin richard. >> this is the richard family. dave and i have the opportunity to spend a lot of time with a lot of the close friends to talk about how they have been impacted by what happened obviously, the worst possible tragedy and have they been moving forward over the past year. >> actually happen to live not far from you. they live in dorchester, and bill richard is a really well-known guy in the political circles. is a democratic activist. he worked on governor patrick's campaign, and his wife, denise, works out the marian manor, which is a well-known senior citizens center in south boston to they also worked on congressman stephen lynch is camping over the years. they are an amazing family because they have the means to
live wherever they want. they chose to live in that section of dorchester because they know the importance of community. they took this old house, and they basically put all of the resources and all the money into it to make it a really nice house. their thinking is if we stay here, we are one more nice them in the section of the city and they become up to make the city more vibrant. their house becomes like a gathering place in the committee were on christmas bill richard would have open houses and whole neighborhood would come in and take it to be running around to a really nice family. they are actually doing a lot better than people might think they are. they are heartbroken and tested by the loss of martin, but they're just as inspired for the way jan kemp lost a leg, the little girl, has bounced back from his in a way that she has just shown incredible resilience and getting back to being a
little kid. >> the day of the bombing the richard family had a decision to make. they could either go to the marathon or they could go hiking, which is what they did quite often. they chose the marathon. when they were in this position at forum when the first bomb went off, bill richard, he knew it was a bumper a lot of spectators that we've talked to, although the first responders, they thought it could've been a few things. transformer far, they thought it could've been a cam that was used as part of the pageantry of, manhole fire as well. bill richard knew it was a bomb and then you had to give his family away from there as quickly as possible. bill richard jones the barricade and got on to boylston street because he thought his family would be much safer on the street and they went on the sidewalk. >> we should clarify. they were at the second bombing. what happened was they heard the first one and bill reached over the fence and grabbed henry, the oldest boy. >> henry was the person was directly in front of bill it as
his polling energy safety, he's reaching to his next child, which is probably martin, and that's when the bomb went off. it's interesting, we've learned that dzhokhar tsarnaev, the bombing suspect, had chosen that family. he targeted the family. in fact, there's fbi surveillance film that shows him a casing that family, going back and forth behind him before he drops that backpack. how do you rip the heart out of america? you choose an all-american family, and that's what he did. martin was still alive after the bombing for a few seconds. the only words he ever uttered were, where is jane? and jane is his younger sister. jane was almost torn apart. she lost her leg. her life was saved by first responders. their mother, denise, suffered
severe injuries to her i and other parts of her body. one of the things that we found out in the course of writing this book was that the day of the bombing, as martin richards body was, remained on boylston street because it was part of a crime scene and the fbi wouldn't remove it, his body was lying under a sheet as was the body of yangjingjing xu. the boston police were outraged boston police were outreach to be one of those victims off the street. they wanted those victims reunited with their families, wherever they were. one boston police officer said that come on not going to leave, not tonight. i'm going to stay with him. and i want his parents to know that he was never left alone. now, that's heroism. those are the stories as i said we learned over the course of the past year, and they still choke us up when we recount the because it's incredible what a lot, so many people did in the
wake of this unforeseeable tragedy. this is the fourth victim in the marathon aftermath. this is an mit police officer named sean collier. date and i never met john while he was alive, but we feel like we know them intimately now because we spent a lot of time with his family and we learned about what an incredible young man sean collier was. >> really was. he was an officer with the mit police department. and he was just about to get on the somerville police. he was actually roommates, classmates and roommates with richard donahue, he was the officer who ended up being shot at watertown. as well, and that night sean was just on patrol, a routine patrol but obviously, you know, he knew
that the suspects were a large like every other member of the law-enforcement community, but, you know, reasonably they were in cambridge that neither and, in fact, what we learned was he was making plans to go meet a friend after he was done with the shift. one of the last text he said from his phone was to this girl who was a friend of his comment and said let's meet up later on. these two guys came up behind him and executed him in cold blood from behind. he never saw them, never had a chance. another thing caught on surveillance video. they tried to get his gun but they could not get his gun because mit have recently given all the officers new holsters with a specialized way in your to push it down and turn it to get it out. it's a safety lock. precisely for this sort of situation, and so that's what happened to sean. >> that was thursday, april 18, 3 days after the bombings. that day president obama came
for an interface healing service in boston. later that afternoon, the fbi held a news briefing and that's where they shared their surveillance pictures of black hats and white hat. right before sean had gone on to shift that night, he shared their surveillance video or the surveillance pictures i should say on his facebook page. little did he know several hours later he would be seeing them in real life, and they would take his life. now, when dave and i sat down with john's family over a period of several hours last summer, sean has a very large extended family, like the brady bunch. his stepfather with a couple of kids and his mother, he's got two older sisters and her younger brother and their blended family and a very loving family. when dave and i sat down with the colliers can we say we don't want to hear about sean. we want to learn about sean the
brother, the son. we want to know what music sean glenn. we want to know if he was a pain in the, tell us about it. i want to those great stories about sean because it's our job as writers to paint a full picture of this young man. and it was interesting because the family them up to us as we were leaving and they said, david casey, we want to thank you. we were very, we want to thank you. is has been in a credibly inspiring and humbling experience for us. i said, why do you want to thank us? that family said, over the past several months we have never have the time or spent the time to sit around and talk about sean. because without to honor sean at various events and we're always doing something and we never sit around the dining room table and chair these funny stories about our brother. and they thank us for that. it was just an incredible honor, and we have such a responsibility to sean's family, to the family of all the survivors, to the families of
the victims as well, to tell their story right. what we learned about sean was in his 26 years he packed a lot of life in the 26 years. he was an incredible young man, did a lot in his civic community. >> two things strike me about sean. one is from a tiny was 15, he started raising money for the jimmy fund. he saw the telephones on tv and heard them on sports radio, and he literally would collect money from his neighbors in his neighborhood and raise money for the jimmy fund. he did that right up until he passed away. the other aspect that really gives an image of what kind of a person he was, sean was an mit police officer to he wanted to join another department, a bigger department, a city department. he had an opportunity before you actually start with mit to go to another town. lincoln, the town of lincoln to hit our don't mit is going to become a police officer.
yes, i accept the job. in that time before he i to start the job, lincoln offered him a job. he wanted to lincoln job more. he would rather work in account than a college. but he made a commitment to mit and he went to the chief and talk to him and said, i have an opportunity to take this job in lincoln, but i'm going to come to work for you. the chief said, go to lincoln if you want to do what's best for you. he said no, i give you my word. i'm going to work for you. think about that for a minute, he actually probably should have never been there that day. but that's just the kind of person he was, and commitment meant everything to him. >> this photo is pretty funny but it shows sean collier county. his sister always told us he never cooked, and that he ate takeout for much of his adult life. so i think that photo right there was to show them that he could cook if he needed to. but what an incredible young man he was. okay, now we're getting the
hours later, the day after, the lockdown in the city which many of you were probably locked in your apartment or in your homes. is, you out there. >> so after sean collier was executed, the two brothers carjacked the guy. they drove to water down. the guide escaped when they stopped for gas or snacks or something. the car was tracked by the police to gps to water down. he gets to watertown, and the watertown police are alerted, it's in your neighborhood and this officer, officer reynolds from watertown pics of the vehicle and sees, he says i haven't. and at the time, they didn't know that it was related to the marathon, or even the killing of sean collier. pages know they got a 911 call from a carjacking victim is that they took my car.
the officers were not prepared for about what was to unfold. they thought of some punk kids who carjacked somebody in cambridge antiquated dump the car and went into the woods. they thought they would have a little foot chase. what ended up happening is which all know and so on tv, and it ended up being an incredible shootout, again, amazing examples of heroism. these officers, reynolds, cleland, and a couple other watertown officers got into a toad to firefight with tamerlan tsarnaev and his brother, and they were able to take down tamerlan, and the younger brother escaped in the suv, tried to run down the copts as he sped away, and actually ran over his own brother. and hit a couple of cruisers, dumped the car and ran and hid in the boat that you see there. >> lee's officers on the go through rigorous training that these watertown police officers
were not trained for armed combat. that's basically what this was. this was a battle in the middle of the street. they are quick thinking that night not only save their own lives to save the lives of so many others as well. >> they made a lot of got decisions that night to say that only their lives but the lives of the brother officers and other folks as well. during the shootout, officer donahoe, i nbt police officer, once the bullets started flying, police from all over the region came in boston, cambridge, somerville, arlington, lexington, mbta, state police obvious he. donahue was shot by eric gunfire during that shooting. it severed his femoral artery and he nearly died on the street, but again it was another example of quick actions of people that rescued him and the tide turned gets on his legs and he was brought to mount auburn
hospital and he said his life. >> is hard at actually stopped. -- his heart had actually stopped. the incredible staff at mount auburn literally got his polls back, and when his wife reached the hospital, that's when they told her that he shouldn't be here, but he is for no. he went to eight hours of surgery and he's doing well, well today which is amazing. >> i'll explain the shootout. so after dzhokhar escaped from the scene, don't see as you become ran off on foot, one of the biggest manhun manhunts thar happened in the nation's history unfolded. the boston police took control of the scene. it became clear at the point it was the marathon suspects. they cordoned off a 20 block parameter of the neighborhood in watertown where they were and they started going created by greed. i was out in the middle of that thing. i was sent out the senate sean
collier was shot, i was sent from a house in dorchester and the right to watertown. i get in there and my car ended up getting clothes into the perimeter and it was there for the duration and to after they caught him. i was there through the whole thing and watch this thing unfold. the police went house to house. it was armed swat teams from all over the region. they were dogs, machine guns, tanks. it was a wild wildstein. the whole time no one knew where he was. he could have jumped in a cab, gone on a train, could've carjacked someone again. he could have felt in the river. it was the charles river. there was some speculation maybe he swam across the river. for roughly 20 hours there was really no trace of the guy. there were a couple of hits on his blood. i was there, one house where the dogs hit on his blood. he had run through the backyard but then they lost to send.
what happened was they were so many people running back and forth and so me police officers that the sent, the dogs were thrown off. they couldn't follow the scent. that's why, let people say why did you find in? that's why. they couldn't track him. there were some reports at some point that maybe have gotten on a bus, and he'd gotten on a train and made his way all the way to connecticut. this was all happening overnight. at some point overnight the mayor and the governor decided we can't let the train start running. we can't let caps start ready to we have to shut down the transportation system and find this guy. >> obviously it was a lockdown situation for several hours. i really call this the biggest citizens arrest in american history because it wasn't, not only law enforcement attract this guy. these were grandmothers, kids putting their mugs at a social media. everybody in this city, what
should he wanted a cigarette and he went out and he said doesn't look right, that looks weird. he went over and lifted it up and couldn't believe what he saw. he called 911 and that is how thing came down. >> we were the only journalists invited on the cruise to the south of france where over 100 survivors of the boston marathon bombing and it was an incredible nine days we were writing about the whale to write about it for "esquire" magazine as well so if you search or names in esquire, you will read that very
impacting powerful article because we looked into the odds of the survivors ended our honor to tell their story in our book and austin strong -- boston strong. thank you very much. [applause] >> if you could step up to the microphone if you have a question. [inaudible] >> i think the tv cameras are scaring people. [laughter] >> we can talk a little bit more about that incredible cruise. this is a shot of some of the other survivors on the deck of the ship. this was an incredible doing age and by the local boston company that spent half a million
dollars to take all of these survivors on it all all-inclusive trip to france. that is some of them in the leone and this is an interesting picture this is carlos and the folder. we got to know his dad a little bit on the cruise and when we met him he and his wife had traveled there from beijing. they couldn' couldn't speak in . he had a translator who could barely speak english and they kept to themselves. they were in so much pain you could see it in their faces and this dad lost his daughter. the person that got him out of his shell so to speak with was s because carlos also suffered the loss of his son's so they talk in a language all their own. as a language of sorrow and of strength as well and over the course of those days we started
to see a smile for them on the e lips of baghdad and it was amazing. >> the way the trip came together is an incredible story. inc. lewis had done a trick for the families of the fallen soldiers. carlos was one of them invited on the trip for the wounded warriors. so the owner carlos from the trip so when he saw the marathon unfold on tv he said that that guy we had on the cruise ship. we took them on a trip once. as the weeks went on they said how can we hope we want to do something so they decided to donate a cruise to these people and carlos was one of the first day reach out to. >> so many people have been giving over the past year and it
shows the compassion and generosity not only of people in boston but all over the world that have extended the donations to these survivors. the gentleman in the middle of the photograph his name is bill white. he was a founder pilot in the economic, right clicks and he survived several combat missions only to have his leg taken from him on the street. 71-years-old and he has to learn how to walk again but he did. it was not an easy trip because we took a lot of different excursions all over these little streets in france and he didn't want anybody's help. he was a part of just about everything and he was amazing. this is a great photograph right here. this is michelle and sabrina. they became friends and now they are almost best friends because this trip. sabrina was in front when the bomb detonated and she suffered
traumatic brain injury and it's been tough for her to even do her job properly over the past year but these two became friends and we were actually including france visiting an ancient cathedral and in a farmers market all of a sudden we see larry bircher in the middle of france so we have to take that photograph and that really personifies antics of the flies the friendship not only between sabrina and michelle but the friendships made over the course of those 12 days including many of the people david and i met. we have a responsibility to these folks not only because we are writing about them but because we are their friends and we want to make sure we get the story right. a >> i heard that right after it
happened [inaudible] was that a destination or were they just passing through? >> they were just passing through because the stolen suv. they wind it up through the town where they ha had the honda civc parked on a side street and they were literally taking out parts of theipartof their arsenal bece remember the ultimate plan was to get themselves to times square in new york city for this incredibly bloody crescendo to the past week and fortunately that didn't happen. >> they may be ties to the watertown neighborhood as well where he had friends living in that area. the house in cambridge was not far from that area so there is speculation whether they may have been going to someone's house in that neighborhood as well. i heard early on there was a
cell and he had been there. >> no one else has been charged. the only people charged were the three friends. he had roommates at dartmouth that are accused of lying to the fbi and basically withholding evidence. there was gunpowder and fireworks authorities the leave that dzokhar used to build a bomb in his dorm room and his friends kind of hid those from the fbi when they were initially questioned so those three kids were charged. as far as other co-conspirators, there are none as of now. >> was that connected? >> it was a separate incident that happened on september 11 in 2012. >> 2011 where three men were caught three jewish men were
executed and had marijuana sprinkled on their bodies. steve levin debate tamerlan for suspects in that murder and that is what happened in florida where he was being questioned by the fbi and the massachusetts state police bombings and he was killed during a confrontation, so according to the most recent report by the fbi, he talked to them and said that he did then and he was signing a confession. >> there are so many questions to be inserted tha answered thie answered in our lifetime. you have a question? >> my name is daniel. the one that went outside to smoke a cigarette was in violation but he found the bomber so was he let off the hook for that? >> i was joking about that. that's literally coming you were not supposed to leave your
house. but, you know, he was just in his yard having a cigarette. it wasn't a big deal. but if the cop had seen him outside they would have said this back in the house. i was standing there with the media and anybody that came out of the house forcefully said go back inside so as luck would have it his need for the cigarette. >> there is also a great photograph that went viral on the social media that shows the boston police officer where the two cartons of milk that he had gotten for a family that couldn't violate the lockdown order, but his mother had two children that needed their morning cereal and they had no milk so that was one of those little vignettes.
there is a debate or controversy going on right now as to whether to charge tsarnaev with a death penaltthedeath penalty and i wof you have any insight to share how the survivors feel about that issue. it's back to the decision has been made by the attorney's office to put the death penalty on the table and that will be a decision the attorney general will make or the state convicts if they convict that will be part of the sentencing phase where they can decide life were given the death penalty. in our conversations with the folks on the ship and france as with the general public it ranges. some people say yes get rid of him he has no right to breathe our air that others say he should fi sit in jail. so i think the opinions freely
range along the survivors. there are definitely some that are angry though and yes, give them the death penalty. >> question? >> have some friends on the west coast for over a decade now some of the facebook chatter was maybe the real terrorist here is the law enforcement who put watertown in the local community and its locked down, but like you said the swat teams and machine guns into the military style response. did the folks you speak to give any feelings how they felt regarding that as opposed to
being here and knowing this one person was still at large as compared to the folks that are so far removed into seeing the military invasion of what was it, 20 square blocks? >> there was a controversy and this is something the aclu expressed concerns about the lockdown and it was a unconventional decision that having been a crime reporter for years it was the right decision. these kids were throwing bombs at the police come in off firecrackers but bombs. they bombed the boston marathon. they killed a coffe coffee and t another police officer that was bleeding out. it's easy for someone in los angeles tuesday 1200 cops had to walk down the city to catch one kid? while, they were doing a lot of terror and you had to do something to stop them. but if they didn't walk down the city and he brings one of those bombs onto the red line and blows it up and now we find more people dead. >> that's where the decision
began before them. they understood that the second bombing suspect was looking to escape. how do you cut off his escape route? you shut down the buses come at the end bta and it grew from there. i think at the end of the day as david said we think it was the right decision to make because again, if you second guess -- if somebody else was killed and you second-guess that, we have seen a lot of the crime scene photographs and we've come face-to-face with with a lot oe families that have lost their loved ones and to think that an overreach or over extension of the police powers saved somebody's life this day, we will take that any day. >> i have spoken to people in my request for the reporting that lived in that area that didn't think it was excessive and they don't want it to become a precedent-setting matter where the police can just walk down an entire city anytime they want. in my opinion, this was an
extremely come extremely intense and rare scenario that we will hopefully never see again in our lifetime, so i don't think we are at any risk of the police trying to lock down neighborhoods just to look for those. >> how have you been in the journalistic side of the law for 20 years do you think that social media played a huge aspect is that positively but more negatively when it came to the manhunt aspect of it because so many people were following it and seeing what they were doing that maybe they thought everyone else thought they were doing it and kind of added a few altered the fire? >> there were a couple things that happened in the social media during the manhunt from the day of the bombing up until the capture there was a whole thing on reddit where they had a for him there were thousands of photographs taken before, during and after the bombings and literally these people just in their homes on reddit were
analyzing these pictures encircling people they both looked suspicious in their opinion. those reddit would be detectives, that was damaging. we write about this in the book the post put two kids on the front page of the post and they were circled in red and it's had a bad man and that was a memo sent out to police saying you know, we want to talk to these guys. it turned out that they have nothing to do with it. so all that stuff on reddit might be fun for people to try to solve a crime in their house but it wasn't productive to the law enforcement. the other thing is the night of the shootout there was a kid alex, what is his name there at 62 laurel street. he was live tweeting the actual shootout and his pictures have become evidence. he was taking pictures out of the window and they are now evidence of th in the federal tl
which is an important thing. he tweeted those out. that was real-time and it was productive so now the police have the pictures. this is tamerlan tsarnaev, this is dzhokhar. >> and it was not only the citizen journalists making mistakes, the "boston globe," etc. have made mistakes and the need to get information out there quickly. there was a report later on in that week that the suspect was in custody and was being arraigned in the federal courthouse. there was no suspect in custody and nobody was being arraigned, but it brought the world's media to the federal court for several hours while they were trying to figure out what was the best information and what was real and it really becomes in the digital age one of the challenges we have had in writing this book is what is true and what is the best information and what do you go with. i think that we could journalists have done an
incredible job, but they also give themselves a disservice in many ways just for trying to get the story out there as quickly as they could. >> one last thing on the social media piece, i'm pretty active on twitter, and that day i was live tweeting from the walkout when i was out there, the lockdown. i was basically tweeting where i was and what was going on and of the swat teams just search his house and i got calls from law enforcement asked me to stop tweeting my location because it was jeopardizing everybody that was there. if they did have someone they were working with maybe they were monitoring the journalists saying they are in that house get out. so it was intense. and it was a social media less than that i think will be analyzed for many years to come. >> one more question. >> i want to start off by
thanking you for doing this. i think a lot of us are learning bits and pieces of the puzzle that we didn't already previously know, so i appreciate you being here. my question is it's sort of something that i've been wondering for the last year area we have heard a lot of stories from survivors. we have heard from the families of victims and a lot from law enforcement and people who were on the scene but it seems like one of the people that we haven't really heard from the order heard any accounts from has been the widow of tamerlan tsarnaev. she has been hidden from view and it has been very vague but she knew or didn't know. i think a lot of people are just sort of left with -- spinnaker that is where the status is right now. there are a lot of questions and mysteries in surrounding this case. her involvement or lack of involvement is one of the biggest mysteries but still needs to be solved and unlocked.
as far she hasn't been charged with anything in relation to the bombings. but we are still working on that angle of the story. and even though if we publish and later her role or the lack thereof we will update the book when we can. >> i believe it was the daily news had a story sunday about her and the mystery surrounding her. she is a free citizen. she is living with her family i believe somewhere out of state, and about one thing that is important to note about her is they searched the house obviously had found the bomb making materials and they searched them and none of her fingerprints or dna showed up on any of those materials, so that the presumption of innocence with her. [applause]
is is shaped by the post war america that didn't exist before the war and it's never going to exist anywhere again. a country that won the war in a way that strengthened its economy while all of its competitors burned each other to the ground and so for decades they could basically contain the growth of capitalism. and all of them did rise in a way at least to some extent. that model defines our expectations in a way that is going to need to change and it's going to be very, very difficult to change that. you can look for examples the six i had an interesting experience of reading charles murray's new book after reading paul krugman the conscience of the liberal. it starts the same way. they start with an introduction that is pure nostalgia for the early 1960s. and almost in the same terms. and they are right. those are years that we should miss. there's a lot about them to
miss. but our politics is too oriented about how can we bring that back rather than thinking about what is the world look like now and how can we make the most of america's strength today. both parties are failing at that. it's not just a conservative parties. both are intellectually exhausted and at the same time in a way that is bad for the countries. >> there is a 50s nostalgia that right. >> the government was big. big labor was big and there was a lot of economic dynamism at the time but that doesn't mean that we can do it today. >> what is the future? the 60s were pretty good to me. [laughter] i know you don't remember, you were busy on your thing called the internet created using we are not looking back -- >> we weren't there yet. [laughter] >> that's why i enjoy them. [laughter] >> you can see more of the panel of the future of conservatism tonight at eight eastern on c-span.
>> some of the administrators early on who were not lawyers gave the kid bad legal advice, which was essentially don't tell your parents, don't get lawyers to cooperate with the police and basically this is going to go away. some of that gave them a -- they thought that they had a legal exposure because of that.
and beyond that, there was a desire to kind of make this go away, to protect the brand, to make sure once it was decided that the kids were innocent, that's the last thing that you wanted was to try to then have to litigate with them about, you know, all of what had happened. so the easiest course of action was just to pay them this $20 million have them i presume sign nondisclosure, non- disparagement agreements which hopes to explain why they aren't talking to me and they haven't talked to anybody since they settled. it's not exactly clear why they felt the need to pay these kids. people get unfortunately wrongly convicted all the time. there are places like the innocence project who defend those kind of people and try to reverse the judgments that were made. you know, examples of people wrongfully convicted of murder spending 18 years in prison, he
teamed years, they get a $20,000 payment a year as a result. these kids spent other than their arraignment hour or two am in no time in jail, no time in prison and got $20 million. >> and the price of silence, the author and the duke alumni william cohan looks at the lacrosse scandal of 2006 on c-span q-and-a. now former state department spokesman p.j. crowley on the role of diplomacy. he spoke wednesday at the american foreign service association in washington, d.c. for a little more than an hour. >> accustomed as i am taking questions from the podium -- [laughter] -- joe and bob, thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here in ca number of colleagues, past and present, in the audience. i do want to recognize a couple in particular.
jonathan over here is an outstanding foreign service officer and serving as the public diplomacy officer and president at the ipdgc. later in the year he will be off to turkey, one of the most interesting places in the world for practitioners of public diplomacy. we are giving an analysis of the challenge that gw that we will be releasing leader i later in . second, back bruce gregory also a colleague that was just released in an important and thought-provoking report on the future of public diplomacy that is available on our ipdgc website. it is an important contribution to the debate about the public diplomacy and what it is, what it is end, wha isn't, what it wd to become and has not yet. i came to understand this later in my tenure as the assistant secretary for public affairs,
and it appears to be a debate that never ends. in fact, as soon as you start your drawn back in time focused on not necessarily what needs to be. but when i arrived across the street i visited every note and cranny in my organization, one particular group some veterans who have any part and have as we shall see not moved on. it's been ten years, get over it and the response was we are never getting over it. it's both useful and important. if you look at the title of my remarks, the deficit i'm not sure whether i thought of that or you thought abouwhat you thoa great title for speech. you might think the deficit includes the lack of an entity like usia. i'm going to disappoint you. if the challenge of public
diplomacy in the 21st century is different than what we experienced in the cold war and even to talk about the current crisis in ukraine and you hear that this is a new cold war, now i believe that the department is doing effective public diplomacy work for the past several months. i say to that no trouble communicating. our good friend and colleague in particular thanks to the intelligence services. about the policy world and the information environment are very different than they were 40 years ago when they entered government service. the world changed dramatically from the time i left the white house in 2001 so i came to the state department in 2009. the challenge in today's world isn't just about what we communicate about who we are. we are actually very good at that but we need to do better in explaining what we do and factoring the public diplomacy and public opinion into the
policymaking process. this is where ideally the public diplomacy deficit exists. the new undersecretary for the public diplomacy and public affairs work talking yesterday at the swearing-in ceremony about the power of the story that we tell. our standing in the world is challenged in some respects, but make no mistake, as rick said, when you put everything together -- who we are, what we stand for, what we produce, how we innovate, the opportunities we generate for our citizens and others, the ideas that have come to define us -- we are admired for who we are, but the world does not like, and in many cases does not understand, what we are trying to do. ..
after mentioning at the podium that we are waiting to hear from the libyan government regarding the official status of its ambassador, then foreign minister moussa cusa called my colleague, jeff feldman, and said mr. crowley says you are waiting to hear from me. and then he never mentioned the ambassador. more recently, secretary kerry made an off-the-cuff comment regarding syria that russia heard loud and clear. it was converted into the
removal of chemical weapons from the syrian battlefield. now come this year i remained tragedy, but at least weapons of mass destruction are no longer part of the equation. too often over the past decade we have failed to recognize the impact of what we do. chosen not to explain our action or prefer to communicate in private, not public. how many times have we heard you can't talk about that, and might tip off our adversaries. but in the process, we end up not explaining ourselves effect doubly to our friends and even her citizens. the world is changing dramatically. i don't need to tell an audience like this that fact. and so must our strategies for policymaking diplomacy and public diplomacy. having fun being a professor. it's a lot worse than being a professor than trying to explain policy across the street. at the start of the semester i
posed a series of questions to my graduate class in public diplomacy at gw. first what it was, does public diplomacy required fundamental change in the 21st century? its foundations to cemex and its current functions remain rooted in the cold war. back then it was two distinct systems competing for global privacy. today we still confront as the president said this recent tip to europe, a contest of ideas that this contest is very different. there's many more competitors, state and nonstate tears, jockeying for influence and an integrated system. back then you can send a distinct message of information to different dances and be be reasonable a confident in the same room. anything we say is available within minutes almost anywhere in the world. there's no such such thing as it
or in domestic divide. the concept of plausible deniability is rapidly becoming obsolete. although that may be news to russia and vladimir putin. i second question i pose to my student and one assist public diplomacy leads to adapt, should the majority of effort and resources be devoted to programs with a long-term or short-term payoff? no one doubts the strategic value of fulbright scholarships. i don't think it's an overstatement to say in the 100 year processor evolution of what has become known as public diplomacy, no single program has been more influential or yielded a better or higher roi, return on investment than fulbright scholarships. we do need to preserve cultural education and exchange programs that produce such demonstrated
long-term benefit. we have to step back and ask the tough questions. do we need to achieve understanding and influence everywhere? after all, we are the only country in the world that seemingly has the diplomatic presence and a policy interest that one way or another effects every seminarian on earth. when our policy allegedly pay this from one part of the world to another, say to a shot, to public diplomacy resources have to pay that as well? and what are we trying to achieve with these investments? a benefit of doubt? attraction? distraction translated to influence? all of the questions without easy answers. no doubt a meaningful size of the public diplomacy pie should be devoted to long-term efforts that are not trumped by the media. now there is tension in the dual nature of public diplomacy
today. we need to focus on the long-term, even as we do with the crisis at the moment. but we can do both. a third question i pose regarding the importance of public opinion as a factor in the policy make in process, as the most influential country in the world, where i was going to say things they do things that someone is not going to like. at times, to the occasional consternation of my policy colleagues, i would seek out public disagreements with leaders. so if you go shot this colony ridiculous by name on his weekly television show, l. presidente. it's one of the highlights of my time across the street. now, my policy colleagues said it nor had. i argued there was a significant regional debate already underway. the question was in league, are we going to join that debate on his local, regional or global basis, with always welcome debates and far more often than
not, these debates advance their interests, policies and values. in my view they should never shy away from them. public opinion today is becoming more strategic. it is not to say we are out to win a popularity contest. foreign policy is still guided significantly by delete public opinion, which the united states government has always successfully cultivated. but as we've seen over the past 10 or 15 years, we cannot ignore domestic and global public opinion. whether dealing with the prime minister or president for life, neither of us can take street sentiment. free sakarya causes program gps, public global square. he does so for a good reason. the world now has access to a wider array of information than ever before. more and more of the world is connected. the most potent weapon in our
arsenal today is a cell phone, a smartphone connect you to the internet with a very good camera. the impact of social media has been understood. perhaps it has even been overstated, it is an increasingly powerful tool for policy and social factors. what we saw three years ago with the arab uprisings were real revolutions. they were not facebook, twitter or wiki revolutions. particularly in egypt, are organized labor played vital important role. so did networks like the abrams six movement, but they were enabled by an information infrastructure in egypt that could not be caught off despite government attempts to do so. in syria, the opposition is struggling. not because it is not connected, but at least for the moment it is at that. that said, without the power of social media last summer when countless reports using youtube
and other channels advance credible evidence that chemical weapons were being used on a large scale, which forced the united nations said major powers, including the united states and russia, to respond. that said, the documentation of atrocities in syria, to all forms of media has not translated into a groundswell of public support for a more activist internationalist policy. but the so-called cnn, al jazeera or facebook effects have an agenda setting role, the ability to mobilize around a specific cause for a limited period of time that could change the status quo. they could pose real constraints and row across on policies that are unpopular, even if they're not in and of themselves determine it. they are forced forcing the policy environment that is ideally important. if that is the case, what
brought the fourth question i posed to mr. james? what is the relationship between diplomacy and public diplomacy? during the cold war, they were separate issues, particularly structurally giving the testing existence of department of state and the united states agency. for the past 15 years, they've been related with the integration of the two agencies in 1991. i don't think anyone in this room would suggest that the integration was a revision back then is complete. it remains very much a work in progress. my class decided broadly speaking that in today's policy environment, brace yourself up in the two actually synonymous. in a global and interconnected world, diplomacy is no longer just government to government dialogue behind close doors. diplomacy in today's world is necessarily public.
think back to my time in a couple of instances. frank wisner, a guy that we all know and love to the sensitive diplomatic trip to cairo and 2011 to see hosni mubarak shortly before he was forced into retirement. frank never made it to the embassy, much less to see mubarak before he pictured on the sidewalk near his hotel. in just the last few days, john brennan was out this past weekend when he made a side trip to ukraine during a european scheduled european travel. whatever we do is going to be defined by someone. and might as well be us. the state department was right over the weekend to acknowledge brennan's trip, something the cia does not usually do. i mentioned earlier and report that my colleague who suggested in his report that the public diplomacy is no longer distinct from diplomacy.
it is now more perfect to speak of the public dissension of diplomacy in a world in which events seem to be accelerating, with the actions and statements of governments are more visible and frequently subject to intense public scrutiny, where no country, no entity can have realistic solutions to challenges allowed. working in political consensus for action as more and more difficult. ms, we are effective diplomacy requires not just an understanding of the substance, but also the competing national interests, clashes of history and cultures and complex politics and any issue. let's look at a few examples. i'll just pass for one second. take ukraine, for example. the obama administration i think is playing a limited hand in ukraine quite effectively.
the interest in this challenge. country is far more important to russia's national interests than americas or yours. the essays in europe have continued to offer post-relations to countries that define themselves in terms of what they are for and not just what they are against. intrigued by the revisionists in crept into the debate about ukraine that europe and the united states have overreached turbine extending e.u. nato membership to countries in central, southern and eastern europe. really? tell that to poland, the czech republic, romania or the baltic states who have never doubted the importance of political economic and security alliances. the last six months have done more to remind populations about the importance of friendships and alliances that two decades are about diminishing returns. the united states made it clear,
fermentation about what is at stake, how the crisis can be solved and the consequences of ongoing russian intimidation, infiltration and manipulation. the president has been very careful to keep the rhetoric measured in the door open to a diplomatic solution. we certainly hope to john kerry will be successful this week and has discussions in geneva. this resolve, this restraint i think has helped the united states regain the influence that it lost in the resurgence. as for vladimir putin, whatever short-term, he stands to be the loser over the long run. a $50 billion investment to the sochi olympics, but using a
diplomatic phrase, proof. $50 billion has gone out the window and with it international investment capital. in suggesting we need to do a better job i do not suggest this is easy. president morrissey declined to say whether as a military coup. after all he remains popular with the majority of egyptian citizens. u.s. metanarrative regarding egypt, the political center of the arab world with governments must respond to the aspirations of the people. i sat back, he treated that consistently and early 2011. it would appear as noon
president, is doing just that. they avoided the requirement to suspend all military assistance to egypt. it goes with $1.5 billion. as subsequent events have shown, the united states unwillingness to declared the egyptian military action a coup ouster manically undermined the american democracy narrative in the middle east. to be sure president morrissey while elected freely and fairly was not governing effectively or democratically. there is also little reason to believe the egyptian military was going to be the democratic agent of change. a subsequent actions all but rolled back not just in the 2012 election, but the 2011 revolution as well.
the leaders of the april 6th movement have been given three-year jail sentence is just upheld to an appeals court. journalists from al jazeera's rod caster 2011 provided reach and staying power to the two rear movement and administration. notwithstanding the american aspirations, there's no reason to believe that egypt is on a path to an inclusive democracy. this has often make canes at the united states simultaneously accused of doing too much and not doing enough. you're accused of defending morsi and condoning his overthrow. failing to position has been a panacea either. the poll showed the united states has a 4% approval rating in egypt. within the margin of error. which makes it possible we have fun at literally every man, woman and child in the country. with that removal of a benign 13
and 2011 to be on the right side of history. but we've seen this history has not stopped. when push came to shove, we cast our lot with another military strongman, rather than analytic. i'm not saying that's a great choice, but this was a less than thought we learned in the aftermath of 9/11 and we still have to relearn. the key question as to what extent public diplomacy for the public dimension of diplomacy factored into the decision to maintain the military dimension of the relationship as important as that is. every indication is the answer is public diplomacy played a marginal role at best, which again underscores the ongoing challenge of integration of public diplomacy would the inner workings of the department of state. take another case study, the recent avoidable crisis over the
arrest of an indian diplomat for visa fraud and from an india standpoint her alleged mistreatment. the united states has the right to defend his size and there's strong evidence that cocoa that he consciously worked to defeat the united states regarding her adherence. the case is that there is subject for indian diplomats are accused of mistreatment of their domestic employees. india's tit-for-tat response, particularly the removal of security barriers around the u.s. embassy in new delhi undermines india's narrative as the rising power committed to upholding international norms. this is not to point fingers at any specific decision over the past nine months, but the question again is where was the application sound public policy is to resolve the situation before it became a crisis? was the decision was made to proceed to play public diplomacy
resources, to define what the case was about. again, those public affairs side of the house either not consulted in any meaningful way or perhaps did not even know about the case until copra gotti was turned over to u.s. marshals service by diplomatic security. the effective diplomacy and both sides eventually move these countries beyond the crisis stage. but not before considerable damage was done to a president obama has termed one of the defining relationships of the 21st century. the question is whether as part of the policy process diplomatic costs are weighed alongside the strategic benefits of inaction or in non-action and where there is a likely recognition of potential public cost our steps taken to potentially mitigate.
take pakistan for example. the united states is never going to gain the trust and confidence that the majority pakistani citizens, at least not while the united states tries to maintain as constructive a relationship. as the former pakistani ambassador to united states has written an excellent book about the history of u.s. pakistani relations, the relationship has a long history of misconceptions and dysfunction on both sides. in most recent public opinion polls and pakistan, roughly two thirds of pakistani consider the united states an enemy. this is a potential strategic problem in the context of what was once considered the war on terror now aptly renamed the war against al qaeda. we are set for a long time there's no kinetic solution to violent political extremists. donald rumsfeld appropriately
questioned the so-called snowflake or 2003, whether the u.s. strategy was creating more extremist than it was one minute. that remains the fundamental question. the salish aside set off a bomb in 2010 by ongoing germ operations in pakistan. those operations have been instrumental in reducing the threat posed by core al qaeda. of course one with osama bin laden. to be clear, the threat is not disappearing, but represents a danger that can be effectively managed at a reduced level of effort. will we continue to do in pakistan comes at a very high cost. from a policy standpoint appears the obama at industry should not receive an president pledges to increase transparency of drawing operations has respected an arrangement strap to the bush administration and the musharraf
government that neither country talked publicly about drawing operations in pakistan. the united states treats john operations that whatever we chose to call them, they're not induce in the media provides regular updates on current operations and a number of organizations, including the broad investigative journalist and the new america foundation catalog their effectiveness and impact. all the supposed secrecy accomplishes is enabling pakistan to mislead its own people about what it knows about drawing operations and the fact that they are in pakistan's interest as well as america's and it enables pakistan to say to his own people do trust our violation of pakistani sovereignty. the secrecy surrounding drug operations denies the united states the use of public diplomacy tools to raise understanding of lower the cost
of what is being done in this theater of operation. this doesn't mean they should change or were doing. we have to factor the diplomatic costs into these kinds of decisions as we look to the future. after all, when the united states since the war in afghanistan, the american people still need to understand that their technology will remain, even if the army is not. policymakers used and make sure that policy -- they need to make sure that policy and security benefits outweigh the public diplomacy costs. today when we talk about foreign policy and public diplomacy, we recognize it as a whole of government challenge day in and day out. the state department has certainly been that or when it comes to policy developed and from the execution of foreign policy. it is not necessarily the dominant player once was. obviously the defense department
with its global presence and healthy budget has a major role to play as well. much of our global -- today is about economic issues. as we've seen a variety of crises, particularly iran, sanctions have become a coercive tool of choice, which gives a major international diplomatic role to the treasury department. one of the major advances allows a dozen years since 9/11 to the increased national operation combating terrorism and violent political extremism. the state department has a role to play, but so does the justice department, the fbi and now the department of homeland security. put this all together in a mission and it creates a vast array of issues and responsibilities for u.s. ambassadors in his or her country. no wonder former secretary of state, hillary clinton, called for the transformation of the way the structure and command
our embassies around the world. in this environment, public diplomacy has to continue to adapt as well. in many respects, public policy has undergone the most profound transformation already of any foreign policy element over the past 15 years. at the same time it seems the public diplomacy faces the same challenge it did 15 years ago. nicole at the university of southern california has an excellent history of usia said with a couple of exceptions u.s.a. was always kept when it came to the policymaking process. the good news as we look at the integration of public diplomacy into the department of state is that pd is now represented at the policy table that does not yet have the influential voice that is required. public diplomacy is not just
about creating a constructive environment and the fifth in a public policy and national interest. it's not just about enabling function for diplomacy, but an essential element of diplomatic purpose. this does not require, in my view, a cheater bureaucracy, but perhaps a change in process. like it or not, the nexus for the development and execution of foreign policy has shifted to the right. this is a domestic and international, political reality. i served in all three places. the defense department, the state department and the national security council. there is at the nsc and office of global engagement that's not particularly large, not particularly influential. in other words, just as it was going back 15 years and beyond,
public diplomacy is underrepresented in the situation room just as it was in the truman administration. there is a public diplomacy interagency working group that needs to be strengthened and charged with advising the policy deputies and principles regarding the public diplomacy implications of all major foreign-policy decisions. as a general today, certainly in my time in government, it is a major consideration after policy decision, but not before. this is what needs to change. now, the world is becoming more transparent whether we -- that is true whether or not you consider the implication of the work of chelsea manning or edward snowden. it is a challenge since it is on floating in slow motion. the united states is not certain what snowden took with him and how much of the material now rests in the hands of outlet
like "the guardian" and the "washington post," both of whom earned pulitzer prizes this week. the impact of wikileaks was far less than they feared, expressive because of the aggressive political response led by secretary clinton, deputy secretary bill burns, regional assistant secretaries and a fine world of our ambassadors in the field. in government today, we still operate on the assumption of whether or not an action becomes public as a matter of choice or chance. now, it is a matter of near certainty and we need to adapt to that reality. ..
and if the impact of a potential action is too severe, it's necessary to good back to the drawing board and choose another option. even the most secret compartments of our government today, just as we have lawyers in classified setting to evaluation the legal implications of,. s, we need to have public diploma experts to judge what
the -- diplomacy experts to judge what the public consequences of our actions might be. so given the expanding reach of both traditional and social media, public opinion is becoming more important and it's a matter of our domestic policy and those overseas. this is a global stage, and more and more people have front-row seats. what was true when we -- as we conceptualized the conflict experienced over the past dozen years, what was true in conflict equally applies to areas where we are not. policy and public diplomacy today is about people. no longer just leaders and elites, but broad populations as well, protecting them, engaging them, understanding their history, culture, politic, what
they think about the united states and what they expect from the united states. our able to pursue our national interests will increase increasingly require cooperation and support, and to achieve that the united states has to be seen as asking creatable and -- we are in a world of narratives and now there are more narratives than just two. and we need to do a better job of connecting what we say and do as part of the broaderring extraic narrative. as joe nigh size in this environment, the player with the best story will ultimately win, and as rick said yesterday, and rightly, we do have a great story to tell. thank you very much. [applause]
open the floor to any and all questions, and -- we have a microphone here if you'd like. >> i'm -- am i on? quick question. do you approve of the usaid support for regime change in cuba? it that the right way to go bat that goal? >> die sport the goal of regime change in cuba? well, regime change in cuba has been the united states' policy for 60 years? i mean, i think -- do we support using social media tools to try
to open up cuban society? absolutely. and i was there at the state department when the aid contractor, alan gross, was apprehended in cube, and we continue to urge his release and return to his family. one of the more interesting and relatively unknown actions or ongoing efforts within the state department is through drl and the cautious but definite use of circumvention technology to try to open up spaces. this is a losing battle. you take a country like china, and the efforts they try to try to control the flow of information. i was in beijing last may, and the two things you couldn't do,
you couldn't tweet because they were afraid of -- youwood tweet tianimen squares, -- scare and you account tweet "the new yorkk times" that china considers a threat. so this is an ongoing challenge. i absolutely think it proper for the united states to use -- to try to find a way to introduce technologies into societies that are currently closed and i think trying to control what their populations know about what happened in the rest of the world. i don't think we should be shy about that. i don't think they were shy talking to congress last yankee. >> other questions? please. >> i believe you said that pd is
now at the foreign policy-making table but it still doesn't have any real influence. what in practical terms could pd get that influence? >> well, under judith mchale and perhaps before her -- the idea was developed you would have the public diplomacy, deputy assistant secretaries, and they are in the regional bureaus as policy is being developed. it's unclear whether they're in the key meetings yet. the real meetings at crunch time where they -- go back to what i said about the interagency working group on public diplomacy. as soon as i arrived i had an early meeting over at the situation room, and i said, hey,
we meet periodically but talk about the tools of communication, the channels that are available to us. we're not talking about the public diplomacy dimension of the issues that the deputies are wrestling with and teeing up for the principals and the president. why dope we -- why don't we have a policy meeting that feeds the perspective into what the deputies should think about in terms of public diplomacy that air wrestling with option a, option b, option c, recognizing anytime it gets to the deputies or principals all the good options are gone. you're talking about what the least bad. they looked at me like i had two heads. really? the public diplomat in chief in the government today is ben rhodes. he is a magnificent, thoughtful person. he is also doing 100,000 things at the same time.
but there's just not yet a public diploma process that feeds into the policymaking process that is organized or structured. it's all ad hoc and that's something that we just need to develop. so i think strengthening the role of the pd, deptive assistant secretaries, is an important step in this process. >> your opinions on the white house's current messaging with regards to the ever strengthening and aggressive sanctions against russia, and how you feel the white house is either addressing or not addressing the comments in the media which specifically hit on the fact that those sanctions reduce u.s. business involvement in russia and thereby decrease
our possible leverage in the future. >> i actually think -- as i said in my remarks, i think so far the white house has been pretty effective. in the sense that we haven't let rhetoric get ahead of what we believe we're actually capable of doing. the president has been clear. there will be costs. now, obviously we have to produce those costs, and i don't think that vladimir putin can overlook when $60 billion in their international capital leaves russia in this quarter. so as he calculates his next step -- god knows what that is -- there are things the united states is doing and there are market responses to that i think are very, very important. this is what it different -- we're not talking nuclear weapons which is something that is different from the cold war, but russia's economy is far more integrated in the global system
today than it was 50 years ago, and this does provide the united states and europe important leverage. i think the president has been cautious because, let's be honest, ultimately the toughest decisions in this process as we raise costs are going to be done in europe rather than the united states. i think the president's giving putin time and enough rope to -- so that when he missteps or when he oversteps, that then you're increasing the political consensus behind a long-term challenge that's going to be very, very difficult. i think we can over time begin to see the great work that carlos pascual is doing in the new energy bureau at the state department. ultimately we have a very important energy card that we can play over time, to help wean
europe off of russian energy and on to western energy. that was something that we began to wrestle with in 2009. i think the bush administration was focused on the issue even before the obama administration came into office. so that's the long-term solution, and in the meantime you have to mapping that. i know the german government has begun to sell energy to ukraine as just the beginning of an effort to shift the -- in a different direction. as much as it's about imposing costs on putin, i think the other thing that the west needs to do is to redeem the choice that ukraine has made to turn west rather than east, and this is a difficult environment, and one of the most important steps to take is a credible election
to rebut the russian narrative that the current interim government is illegitimate and a bunch of fast fast do -- fascist but the longer this turns, you don't have a climate that lends itself to an effective election and secondly, the longer it childrens, even itch putin does not have a grand design on ukraine, it gives time for some of these actors, some of whom might be under control of the russia, some are not, and they do something for which the various powers, united states, russia, and europe, cannot overcome, and all of a sudden you have a dynamic that nobody controls. that's the greatest danger the longer this guess on. i think in this particular case, notwithstanding the criticism -- the president's not strong
enough, russia is a better -- putin is a better leader and that nonsense. does anybody want to go to war in crimea? that's the reality -- the reality is no. the president is making sure that rhetoric and actions and capablities stay aligned. what we have seen from experiences, particularly in sierra, our rhetoric has gotten pretty far advanced from what we're actually prepared to do. >> thank you for your comments. you spoke about the increasing tendency over the last 20 years for national security policy, foreign policy to be made the white house, and -- but -- >> i know, a background-breaking statement. >> no. but it strikes me that the media is presenting it more and more
as if there is a huge disconnect between the white house and the bureaucracies concerning foreign policy, and i am wondering if you can speak to whether there is any interaction between the state department, the nsc, as they develop policy and whether there's any input there. >> yes. there's a very rich level of interaction, and there's infar more -- there's fairly important and productive interaction in the '90s. i know, having served at the white house during the second term of the clinton administration, i think the team
at that point of sandy berger is security adviser, madeline albright, secretary of state. georgetown tenet as director of central intelligence, that was a very effective team. they didn't see every issue the same way. they would challenge each other and test each other in terms of policy options, but they gave the president very good advice. the president followed the advice, and then i think there was great coordination in executing u.s. foreign policy at the time. when you think -- i didn't serve in the bush administration from the cheap seats was my impression there was dysfunction in that process in the first term. condi rice, as national security adviser, could not overcome the tensions between the cheney-rumsfeld axis on the one handand the rice-powell access
and didn't seem the president was willing to bridge that today. condi rice came over here to the state depth. staph hadley moved up to be a very effective national security adviser. bob gates came in one of the great team players you will ever encounter, and the second bush term had a much better and more effective foreign policy coordination and execution than happened in the first term. i think that -- those lessans carried over into the obama administration. the reality about the obama administration there was very intensive policy process, and that continues to this day, from secretary clinton to jim steinberg when he was deputy national security -- deputy secretary of state, even jack lew as deputy secretary of
state, bill burns. they got pulled into fifth or six deputy committee meetings on a daily basis. at some point a couple of my colleagues at the assistant secretary level were saying, we have anymore meetings we'll be able to do what they told us to do. by the time get out of a policy meeting in region x, y, z, they've gone to bed. so there's tremendous coordination. in the public diplomacy sense, i had daily interactions with my colleagues over at the nsc and others. i knew that whatever was in my book, when i went to the podium to brief, the policy guys at defense, the policy guys at nsc, had seen ask strangled in many cases the language i had in the become. in fact one of my friends who was in children of western hemisphere affairs when he saw
the daily guidance, he would call and say who is briefing and they would say it's me so he cut it in half because he's going to exaggerate it anyway. so, i think there is tremendous integration today, but the reality is that foreign policy is formulated ultimately now, i think, at the white house, and i'm not saying that's wrong. and then it's executed at the state department quite effectively, in my view. >> thank you. time for one last question. there's another one in the back. >> sure. [inaudible] >> i am -- my question really is a question of process and tactics used by state department
spokespersons. you don't know what questions will be asked, but i imagine in general what you end up is answering the questions you thought were going to be asked, and you don't have time for much more. my question really is, to what extent can the spokesperson's job be used more -- super actively, overactively, to bring up in the way of points you want to make a question that hasn't been asked yet. seems to me that otherwise you tend -- no matter how good you are, you tend to be receivessive -- you or whoever -- tend to be there to answer the questions you think will come up, and if hey come up, you've done your job. to what extent can you or should you fill -- spend time dealing with questions that haven't been
asked but are definitely high priority in the state department and maybe the white house, too. >> it's a great question. i try to open a briefing by saying something. the question came up when i was there, sometimes in our discussions at gw since, does the united states state department have to brief every day? and my view is, we're the united states of america. we have a global policy. we care about every square inch of the earth. we have an opinion about everything. and we ought to express that opinion. so, i always thought it was a good idea that in some fashion, either the spokesperson or the secretary would be out every day and have something to say of importance regarding the crisis of the moment or things that were on our radar but not necessarily on the front page of
the "washington post" or "the new york times." occasionally i would try to introduce a topic that i knew would not be asked. it was in my book. it was good stuff. reflected what the state department was doing, but i knew it was not going to be asked. for example, i would try to introduce policy elements on africa. there was not an african journalist in the room. at the state department briefing room, it's interesting. there were three briefings at the same time. the first couple of rows were the u.s. journalists and producers, and the wire services. in the middle were south asian journalists and middle eastern journalists and every once in a while they would collaborate. they would ask a middle east question and i'm like, okay, what's going on here? and the back very patiently were the asia journalists who
waited -- bided their time, always too courteous. i used to tease them. ask me a question about north korea. the policy on north korea never changes. i have it committed to memory. said the same thing in 2009 i was saying in 1999. don't step on any toes. so interesting dynamic. i walls would -- i always would try to fine a way to introduce a sum i knew would not be asked but reflected good work being done at the state department by something who didn't get the headline, and in this environment, that information would find a niche somewhere. i used to tweet out a lot of things as a state department spokesman. i drove policy guys crazy but if there was something in the become that was good stuff but didn't get asked, i could noodle it down to 140 characters. i would try to push something out. one day i push out a little bit -- a nugget on indonesia,
and the defense department came back and said, you didn't tweet the guidance. i tweeted the guidance, every word i tweeted was from the guidance. but they carefully craft a certain line, it's this but that, and i used this but not that, and they said, you lost the nuance. i went, there's no nuance on twitter. it's 140 characters. but you look to find ways to bring out -- the state department as we all know, it's a remarkable agency. dollar for dollar the united states gets more out of the state department than any other agency in government. certainly the other agency which with i spent 11 years or 26 years, there's wonderful work being done, and you have to find a way to bring that work out. so i dragged some people to the
podium, and there might be five journalists there and -- but they'd ask a couple of questions to get something on the record, and you ship it out in today's world and it's got to find a home somewhere. so you try to find a way to push out things that are important but not necessarily things that are going to make headlines. >> i'm a retired u.s. and foreign commercial service officer, now working for afsa. when i worked overseas i always found usis and public diplomacy being the most critical element we partnered with in order to present american products and services. for example in japan, using the very evoc staff american lifestyle and culture to sell products products which people otherwise thought they were schlock, and i thought the public des moines
programs were incredible. there has been a lot of concern recently about the mainstream american culture, the "sex in the city" type culture, which is so overwhelming our cultural message it is really undermining and it actually contributing to terrorism and issues like that, in the sense that people see our culture as decca -- decadent. secretary kerri was talking about again zazi and senator paul talked about sending comedians to india. and the context this may be part of a cultural engame. -- engagement. >> you raise a lot of issues there. let me unpack a couple of
thoses. i think that anytime that we can show the wonderful sense of humor that americans have -- this is a wonderful thing. i thought senator paul was kind of off base with that. and conversely, you see the dynamic that emerged in egypt with yusef on one hand and the engagement he had with jon stewart. that dynamic is what is actually happening across the middle east. you read a great book by rob wherein wright, rock the cass kaz beau, and it's how they've created an underground popping up and guys trying to do this and it's a losing prop session. if we can make fun of ourselves, what kind of a role model is
that? it's a wonderful united idea the united states can display a sense of humor. i try to use twitter with a sense of humor in 2009 i -- chuck todd said i had the tweet of the year, beating out sarah palin and snooki. the tweet was, as soon as jimmy carter left north korea, with -- as president clinton had gone in 2009 and jimmy carter went in 2009-2010, to bring out an american who was imprisoned in north korea, so i tweeted out, hey, need to pay attention to stays depth travel warnings, we're running out of ex-presidents. so when one of the kim family ended up in singapore at a show, i said the family should get out more o.
-- more often. so some people say that worked. i think that's a wonderful thing that we should -- that's what culture is all about. the other side of the coin is, there's this delicate issue over freedom and what happens when a government -- turkey's list, example, jonathan, it tries to turn off social media because there's something on youtube they don't like. and obviously we demonstrate by example that, you know, you're allowed to ignore it. it's ultimately what tolerance is all about. if we practice it, then we can lead by example. is that going to -- is turkey going to go -- over time they will, but obviously this is a process that is going to take
some time. so i do think in the cultural area, sure, we have programs that they don't like. by the same token we have to have an open door on this side. every once in a while we have had a controversial figure that has -- a university want to bring them here and we go, can't have that. again, we have to lighten up. if we're going to have a vigorous debate about issues, then let's have the debate. we have to recognize, because we're now in a world in which there's no divide, what we do, they see and hear. what they do, we see and hear, to the extent we can foster this conversation, eventually we arrive at some sort of a accommodation. a last comment i'll make, one of the more remarkable points in afghanistan, in 2010, there was a military operation and we
pointed to al jazeera journalists. i didn't know about it. general petraeus didn't know about it before it happened. and it turned out these were guys who were part of the taliban imbed process. we have journalists that go with u.s. soldiers when they take -- undertake an operation. these were guys on the taliban phone tree, and they would get calls that would say, hey, if you set a camera up tuesday night on this block, something might blow up. and we arrested them because they were providing material support to the taliban. the day before this happened, i had been criticizing russia for jailing yet another round of journalists, and i'm going to -- i agree with you. both talking to general petraeus and he's going, what the heck? and that's the challenge. government i